Sirajudheen vs The Superintendent of Police, The Sub Inspector of Police and Beerankutty

R. Basant, J.—This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier order passed by us on 25/08/2009.

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Ms. Ramseena.T, aged 18 years, with whom he is in love and he wants to get married. According to him, Ext.P1 agreement for marriage has been executed by him and the said Ms. Ramseena. Ms. Ramseena was being illegally detained by the third respondent, it was alleged. This petition was filed on 17/8/2009. The same was admitted on 18/8/2009. It came up for hearing on 25/8/2009 and from that date it was adjourned to this date.

We have interacted with Ms. Ramseena, her mother Rasiya and the petitioner Sirajudheen. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent is also present. The petitioner is also represented by his counsel. A lady by name Rizwana claiming to be the wife of the petitioner herein has also appeared before us with an application I.A. No. 11105/2009 to get herself impleaded in the petition. We have interacted with all the parties. Ms. Ramseena states before us categorically that she is residing along with her mother Rasiya and that she is not under illegal detention or confinement of anyone. Asked specifically, she replies that she wants to return along with her mother, who has come to court. Her uncle Mohammedkutty is also present. Ramseena expresses her desire that she would like to return along with her mother and uncle from court.

However, Ramseena states before us that she is in love with the petitioner and she wants to marry him. The mother of Ramseena, Smt. Rasiya is unwilling to agree for such marriage. She states that her husband Sri.Beeran Ali is employed abroad and after her husband returns to India, necessary discussions and negotiations shall be held and appropriate decision shall be taken about the insistence of the alleged detenue Ramseena that she must get married to the petitioner. She is not, at the moment, willing to agree or accept such a relationship between the petitioner herein and the alleged detenue.

The 3rd respondent has not appeared before court. He is represented by his counsel. A counter affidavit has been filed. The learned Counsel submits on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent is not, in any way, interested in the love affair between the petitioner and the alleged detenue and they can take appropriate decision in the matter. The learned Counsel submits that the 3rd respondent is related to the father of the alleged detenue and it is his instructions that the father does not approve of the contemplated marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue.

The petitioner states that he wants to and is willing to get married to the alleged detenue. He asserts that his earlier marriage has been dissolved in accordance with the personal law.

Mrs.Rizwana, who has filed I.A. No. 1105/09, wants to get impleaded in this writ petition. Her only purpose is to report to this Court that the petitioner continues to be married to her and according to her, the marital tie has not been dissolved. Two children are born in the wedlock between the said Rizwana and the petitioner, it is submitted. This is accepted by the petitioner also; but it is the case of the petitioner that the said marital tie has been dissolved.

We do not think it necessary that Mrs.Rizwana must be impleaded as a party in this writ petition. We have heard her counsel and have interacted with her also in the chamber.

The scope of the jurisdiction of this Court in this petition for writ of a habeas corpus is rather limited. Is the alleged detenue under illegal confinement or detention? That is the crucial question to be decided. Ms. Ramseena, the alleged detenue has stated before us categorically that she is not under confinement or detention and she is now residing with her mother. She has made it clear that she would like to return from court along with her mother and her uncle Sri.Mohammedkutty. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not necessary for us to get into the complicated disputes between the parties in this case. Having satisfied ourselves that Ms. Ramseena is not under illegal confinement or detention, we are satisfied that this writ petition can now be dismissed.

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Ms. Ramseena is permitted to leave the court along with her mother Rasiya and her uncle Mohammedkutty with whom she has come to court today.

Ms. Ramseena expresses an apprehension that she may be harassed by the 3rd respondent. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that there is no basis whatsoever in this apprehension. The learned Government Pleader submits that if there be any such grievance, Ms. Ramseena or her relatives can lodge appropriate complaint before the police and the police shall take necessary action in accordance with law. That submission of the learned Government Pleader is also recorded.